New Haswell and next-generation Broadwell parts cater to DIY enthusiasts.

For the last few years, Intel has focused primarily on its mobile CPUs—its chips for laptops, Ultrabooks, tablets, and phones have generated more attention than their high-end desktop lineup. But yesterday Intel threw a bone to the desktop-building, CPU-overclocking desktop set in the form of a few new high-end chips that will go on sale later this year.

First up is a new "Extreme Edition" Core i7 processor based on the "Haswell-E" architecture. These "E" architectures usually go into CPUs reserved for servers and high-end workstations, and generally come with more cores, no integrated GPUs, and beefed up memory controllers (Ivy Bridge-E is used in the 2013 Mac Pro, among many other systems). This new CPU checks all of those boxes—it uses eight CPU cores, supports the emerging DDR4 memory standard, and requires Intel's upcoming X99 chipset (which we don't know much about, yet). This new chip will launch at some point in the second half of 2014. Presumably, we'll hear more about Xeon variants of Haswell-E with even more cores at a later date, since current Ivy Bridge-E chips can cram as many as 15 cores into a single CPU package.

Other announcements were of a little more interest to people looking to get the most performance for their dollar. First up is a dual-core, Haswell-based Pentium chip that's unlocked for overclocking—while it used to be the case that all of Intel's CPUs could be overclocked if your motherboard supported it, most of the company's CPUs in the last three or four years have been locked down by default. Only special, unlocked, usually-expensive K-series CPUs could be overclocked, which sort of defeated the purpose. Way back in the day, lots of people overclocked so they could get high-end performance out of an inexpensive, low-end CPU. This new Pentium won't be a match for any quad-core CPU, but if the price is right it could be a good investment for adventurous old-school overclockers.

The chip is being released in celebration of the Pentium name's 20th birthday—"Pentium" hasn't been used to describe a flagship processor since the "Core" moniker showed up almost a decade ago, but Intel has continued using it to describe mid-to-low-end CPUs nestled in between Core at the high end and Celeron and Atom at the low end. We don't have pricing or an exact availability date, but the chip is compatible with current 8-series and upcoming 9-series chipsets and will be available around the middle of the year.

Available at around the same time will be a new mid-cycle refresh for Haswell, codenamed "Devil's Canyon." Like the new Pentium, the chip will be unlocked, but its packaging will be altered to enable lower temperatures and better overclocking than current Haswell chips—AnandTech has a good breakdown that describes how overclocking potential has diminished even as Intel has improved the efficiency of its CPU architectures. We know nothing else about the processor—not its core count, not its clock speed, and not even if it will support current 8-series chipsets and motherboards—but expect more information between now and when it goes on sale mid-year.

The most forward-looking announcement Intel made was about a new, socketed desktop chip based on the next-generation "Broadwell" CPU architecture. Broadwell is going to follow Haswell, but Intel hasn't said a whole lot about it yet—we know that it will be built on Intel's new 14nm manufacturing process, and we know that the manufacturing process switch has delayed Broadwell by around three months from its original projected ship date.

Further Reading

This announcement gives us a little new (or new-ish) information: first, contrary to some older rumors, Broadwell will indeed be available for standard socketed motherboards. Enthusiasts will be able to upgrade them and swap them as they please. Second, some of those socketed Broadwell CPUs will use Intel's Iris Pro GPUs, the designation used for the company's best integrated graphics chips. In Haswell chips, Iris Pro is limited strictly to desktop and laptop CPUs that are soldered to the motherboard (one mobile example is Apple's 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro, one desktop example is Gigabyte's Brix Pro). The fastest integrated GPU available to socketed Haswell CPUs is the HD 4600, which isn't all that much faster than the HD 4000 GPU used by previous-generation Ivy Bridge chips.

The number of desktop-builders who care about graphics performance but don't care enough to just buy a dedicated GPU probably isn't huge—one assumes this is why no socketed Haswell chips with Iris Pro exist in the first place. However, for those building smaller mini-ITX PCs where power consumption, size, and noise are all important factors, these Iris Pro Broadwell CPUs will probably find a small but enthusiastic niche. It doesn't hurt that they'll also come unlocked, but these will apparently require a new motherboard with Intel's 9-series chipset on board.

It's good that Intel is working in unlocked processors across the entirety of the budget range. Hopefully they can see their way to placing their integrated GPUs more sensibly. I don't see the point of putting integrated graphics into any enthusiast oriented parts, but there's definitely a calling for something with more oomph out there for the HTPC and low-power or budget friendly aspect of it. Iris Pro is pretty capable, but it's so rare compared to their less capable offerings.

On a side note, I was really disappointed in Microsoft not putting an Iris Pro-enabled processor in the Surface Pro 2. It would have been an excellent showcase item for both companies.

A little good will among the "enthusiasts" goes a long way because they are the ones everyone else turn to for purchasing advice.

Just look at what happened when Microsoft did a sharp turn in Windows 8 in building a UI optimized for casual users (though, in fairness, they did throw the power users a bone in the form of an improved file manager and power users menu)--it alienated enough power users that the OS was suffering from negative buzz even before it was released.

I'm personally still waiting for a price/performance successor to my aging i5-2500k (which I've had running smoothly at 4.4 GHz from the time I first installed it). On the one hand, it's kind of nice that I haven't had to splurge any cash on my system since then, but on the other hand, I've haven't had any substantial part upgrades to incentivize me to do so in the first place. It probably doesn't help that most of the games I play don't really utilize all four cores all that well, either (though this is hopefully going to change moving forward with DX12).

Either way, I'm pleased that technology continues to march inexorably forward. Stagnation is death.

I put together my current PC in 2009 - 2.66Ghz 920 Core i7, 12GB RAM, 2TB HD. Aside from updating the graphics card (second best from every second product refresh, so about every two years) and adding an SSD (single best upgrade), I haven't been tempted to upgrade the CPU or anything else.

For a PC I put together 5 years ago, that says a lot about the recent pace of consumer PC tech improvements.

For the first time in 5 years, once 8-core CPU's like this start to become established as a new (mid-high end) normal, and DDR4 finally starts becoming mainstream, I've started to begin to be tempted to think about replacing my aging but still more than adequate for my needs system.

Once 1TB SSD's become mainstream, I think that will start to look like a real upgrade from my 2009-era PC.

I'm personally still waiting for a price/performance successor to my aging i5-2500k (which I've had running smoothly at 4.4 GHz from the time I first installed it). On the one hand, it's kind of nice that I haven't had to splurge any cash on my system since then, but on the other hand, I've haven't had any substantial part upgrades to incentivize me to do so in the first place. It probably doesn't help that most of the games I play don't really utilize all four cores all that well, either (though this is hopefully going to change moving forward with DX12).

Either way, I'm pleased that technology continues to march inexorably forward. Stagnation is death.

I've got the same cpu and I've yet to see a compelling reason to upgrade it for the new generation, the next might be it though but my 2500K is still going strong.

I'm personally still waiting for a price/performance successor to my aging i5-2500k (which I've had running smoothly at 4.4 GHz from the time I first installed it). On the one hand, it's kind of nice that I haven't had to splurge any cash on my system since then, but on the other hand, I've haven't had any substantial part upgrades to incentivize me to do so in the first place. It probably doesn't help that most of the games I play don't really utilize all four cores all that well, either (though this is hopefully going to change moving forward with DX12).

Either way, I'm pleased that technology continues to march inexorably forward. Stagnation is death.

I've got the same cpu and I've yet to see a compelling reason to upgrade it for the new generation, the next might be it though but my 2500K is still going strong.

In the identical boat (another 2500K at 4.4 here) and the Haswell overclocking to date has seemed too borderline (I see some people pulling 4.5 on air, but a lot of people thermally limited around 4.1) for me to justify spending on it.

Though even if the new revision does unblock overclocking, I still would probably rather spend my money on a GPU upgrade.

I think the focus has moved to GPU performance and storage performance.

Even a low end CPU these days is mostly sitting around on it's ass waiting for the GPU or SSD or RAM chips to do their. When I'm trying to make my code run faster, the CPU is never the bottleneck.

Even GPU speed is stagnated, unless you're trying to run the latest COD at 4k resolution with every detail maxed out at Ultra. If you're just playing games out in the last - well, all the years that games have been made, any mid-range GPU you bought in the last two or three years should be perfectly adequate for another two or three years.

GPU's are only as good as the games that use their power, and with most 'AAA' games being restricted by having to conform to console specifications, there hasn't been much growth of demand of GPU usage by many PC games in the last few years. With the new generation of consoles being powered by low-mid range GPU's, this might start change, but I don't suspect there'll be a lot of demand for cutting edge GPU's for awhile yet.

I think the next real big driver of 'gotta upgrade' hardware will be when 4k monitors begin to become mainstream, thus requiring beefier GPU's, CPU's, HD speeds, RAM and so on to feed. Of course, for streaming eg Netflix to take advantage of that, something like Google Fibre prices and speed will have to become significantly more common - and that's happening, but slowly.

I find I do care these days about integrated graphics- as I upgrade, older parts don't get sold or trashed, they become repurposed. So a CPU might be paired with a top of the line graphics card one day, and in an old mobo with limited RAM and no dedicated graphics card the next. The integrated GPU is important when that repurposed rig is an HTPC running linux.

I think the focus has moved to GPU performance and storage performance.

Even a low end CPU these days is mostly sitting around on it's ass waiting for the GPU or SSD or RAM chips to do their. When I'm trying to make my code run faster, the CPU is never the bottleneck.

With Mantle and now DX12 we're seeing that CPU performance hasn't as much stagnated but has been limited by drivers, with the push for better multithreading in games, CPU performance continues to be important in that field.

As for the chips themselves, Broadwell-K is something I'm interested in as an Ivy Bridge user. I'm only able to get about 4.2ghz on mine without upping the voltage, which would increase heat to an unacceptable level for my PC. Better overclocking ability combined with the Haswell and presumably Broadwell increases in IPC would make it tempting as an upgrade path.

The Pentium-K also interests me, besides only being dual core, it's also pretty heavily underclocked compared to most other Core series CPU's of its family. Taking a 3ghz Pentium-K and turning it into a 4.2ghz one would be a really bad look for the budget AMD options. It would force budget users to get a Z87 motherboard which is about a 30 dollar step up compared to something like a B85 which is a current budget hero, so how prices work out overall will be interesting. A K-series Core i3 on top of a K-series Pentium would pretty much eliminate any real justification to purchase AMD in the budget enthusiast market.

I thought the Broadwell CPUs were rumored to be soldered onto the motherboard? I wouldn't call that very DIY friendly ...

According to th post you just "read":This announcement gives us a little new (or new-ish) information: first, contrary to some older rumors, Broadwell will indeed be available for standard socketed motherboards.

Though even if the new revision does unblock overclocking, I still would probably rather spend my money on a GPU upgrade.

Are you trying to imply that Intel is clock-blocking you?

Of these chips, I tend to find the 8-core most interesting - can anyone say 'virtualization monster'? And I really wonder if this one will have hyperthreading and a slew of PCIe lanes. That would be amazing for SOHO servers (although the lack of ECC memory would be a definite downside).

So do I wait for Broadwell to upgrade my Phenom II 955? Or just go with a Haswell? I'm running a Radeon 7850, which has been my only hardware upgrade since 2010.

I'd love to get another AMD, but they seem to have abandoned enthusiasts like me.

I doubt that Broadwell will be such a huge jump over Haswell that it would be worth waiting until 2015 for. Haswell refresh looks like a solid option and you have the option of going Broadwell as an upgrade if it ends up being some kind of miracle chip since they should use the same socket.

AMD with no new FX chips being planned is pretty much dead in the enthusiast market.

Although the overclocker in me who is too lazy to de-lid his processors is very intrigued to see temperature and overclocking differences with the upcoming Core i7 (presumably an i7-4790K?) that goes to a better TIM or a smaller gap between the die and IHS or hopefully both...

The DDR4 thing piques my interest, as I've been thinking that a new gaming / multimedia rig is in the cards this year for me. We'll see though, not sure anything is really making me pull the plug yet and the new console generation has my gaming itch satiated...plus I can still run diablo fine on my current rig (Phenom X2 + crossfired HD6870s)

It's good that Intel is working in unlocked processors across the entirety of the budget range. Hopefully they can see their way to placing their integrated GPUs more sensibly. I don't see the point of putting integrated graphics into any enthusiast oriented parts, but there's definitely a calling for something with more oomph out there for the HTPC and low-power or budget friendly aspect of it. Iris Pro is pretty capable, but it's so rare compared to their less capable offerings.

On a side note, I was really disappointed in Microsoft not putting an Iris Pro-enabled processor in the Surface Pro 2. It would have been an excellent showcase item for both companies.

I think the rumor that was floating around was Surface Pro 2 was basically a minor place holding type upgrade until broadwell when it will get a huge redesign both inside and out. Thinner design etc. New basically ever thing inside to drive up battery life and performance.

Typo Alert: "Way back in the day, lots of people overclocked so they could get high-end performance out of an **expensive**, low-end CPU."

You probably meant "inexpensive", I'm guessing.

I did, fixed. :-) I remember paying $150 for a single-core socket 939 Athlon 64 back in 2005 and thinking it was a great deal. Walked uphill in the snow both ways to get it, too.

If we're going to play that game, I remember paying over $4k for my first high-end system in 1989. It had a 33 MHz 386 with 4 MB RAM and a 150 MB ESDI drive. I tunneled uphill through the snow (there were 100 mph winds above it) both ways to get it, too. So there.

Like others, I feel like my 2600K hasn't really needed an upgrade. Of course, it's always fun to dream about building a new system, and I'm envisioning a multi-4K setup that runs Linux primarily, with maybe a Windows 7 or 8 (or 9?) install for gaming, and a GPU that can drive a consumer Oculus Rift or single 4K monitor in intensive 3D applications...

I'm not interested in a processor that has its capabilities artificially limited, but if the new Extreme Edition i7 has TSX-NI and VT-d enabled...yeah, I could definitely fantasize about a system based around that.

What about a Celeron 300A running at 450Mhz, or a Celeron 366 running at 550!! I still regret not buying an Abit BP6 with two Celeron 366's and shooting for a dual processor 550 Mhz.

I remember a guy bragging about his Celeron 300A overclock in 2000...by that point, stock processors had overtaken its performance, but he was still proud of it. I'm not discounting how awesome it was in 1998, but I'm pretty sure the Duron 800MHz CPU I had in 2000 was significantly faster.

Man, now I'm getting nostalgic for how awesome those slow-@$$ (by today's standards) computers were. The Nvidia GeForce 2-series GPU I had back then was baller.